"No interface" actually means "no mobile phone interface". Let's not kid ourselves... interface is still important.
Take the author's critical example of a smartphone app to unlock your car. Yes, that's terrible. Now, let's look at the actual interface - the key. I've owned two Subarus now. I loved the keyless entry device on my 1999 Outback. I feel the keyless entry on my 2010 Forester was a step backwards. I accidentally trigger it when I don't want to. It's unreliable, often taking several presses to work. It adds an extra button I've never used that is redundant functionality.
How about another interface? We recently got a new turkey baster, made by Good Grips. It has a built-in rest. Turkey basters get greasy-dirty, and you keep using them off and on for hours. The rest keeps it from getting grease all over your counter. That's a great user interface!
The problem isn't "no interface". The problem is "there's an app for that". Not everything falls under smartphone convenience. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a UI.
Yes! The "no interface is the best interface" does not make sense to me because everything has an interface. Good interfaces are simple interfaces, and they get out of the way. But they're there.
Also, this "no interface" way of thinking often leads to poor discoverability. If users struggle to find the features they expect, the interface is not "getting out of the way". It can get pretty frustrating.
> "No interface" actually means "no mobile phone interface". Let's not kid ourselves... interface is still important.
Yes, the name of the manifesto is very click-baity and in my opinion presents a naive view on interaction design. But to play the devil's advocate: I've attended a workshop by Golden Krishna, and I think he purposely oversimplifies his point to get it across to people who are not professional interaction designers.
For a good rant on the many issues with touch screen-centred interface design, I suggest this essay by Bret Victor:
I'm reminded of this article by Nielsen regarding Interaction Cost:
"Ideally, we’d like users to go to a site and find the answer they’re looking for right there, in front of their eyes. That would mean zero interaction cost and is the holy grail of usability as a field.
Unfortunately, zero interaction cost is rarely attainable, since most sites and apps offer many things that users may want to do."
> "No interface" actually means "no mobile phone interface". Let's not kid ourselves... interface is still important.
Depends how long term we're talking here. If we're talking in a 100 years then yeah 'no interface' is king because ideally we would have microchip implants that allows us to intuitively gather knowledge and do whatever computing we do today simply in our heads.
But today? I have a feeling what they REALLY mean is seamless integration is king over just another app to limit the amount of time used navigating user interfaces (and if we can get that to zero such as opening a door even better).
The light switch is a good interface to light up a room.
Putting in a motion sensor and removing the light switch forces the user of the room to meet the conditions the engineers of the room designed it for.
Providing a motion sensing light switch that has a manual toggle on it allows the user to correct for potential use cases that the automated sensor is not programmed to meet.
The best interface is the intuitive one, not a lack of one for the sake of saying it does not need to exist.
i've also owned two keyless cars back to back with slightly different interfaces (two different german manufacturers, in my case) and here are my thoughts, mostly i completely agree with you:
1. touch-handle to unlock is awesome and useful
2. touch-handle to lock is worse than useless. keep this on the fob and on the interior. nobody reaches for the exterior handle when they're walking away from the car.
3. the touch shouldn't be too sensitive, and should only be on the inside of the door handle (or under the door handle, whatever the layout is) - my
4. there should be a delay of about 500ms i.e. touch it for half a second before it unlocks.
5. no button, like you mentioned
Mobile OS designs have little or no contextual awareness or proximity sensitivity, and GPS is too inaccurate to solve that problem.
It wouldn't be rocket science to add a layer that worked out whether you were walking towards or away from some specific hardware reference transceiver, checked some credentials, and responded with some action.
So - car "keys", hotel room "keys", house "keys", house lights, virtual boarding passes and other travel tickets, etc.
Watch is supposed to do some of this but the UIKit in iOS wasn't really designed for this kind of interaction. So the 'wave your watch around to unlock your room' idea still isn't as streamlined as it could be. NFC/RFID may not be the right technology for this.
It's a good bet that Apple and Google have either worked this out already or will work it out very soon. Disney already have.
It's true that current app UIs are non-ideal. But apps are a transitional solution, and I don't expect them to be around in their current form for more than another few years at most.
Well, no. I think this example show that the best interface is no graphical interface. If the key of my car were some physical button or combination on my phone it would be better than real keys. Real keys are better than an app because I can feel then in my pocket, take them out and own the door, fire the engine without looking at them.
Actually all terminal, vin, emacs, got, etc users here probably agree: best interface for advanced interaction with complex system is still the console. I would configure and program and repair my futuristic car from a remote keyboard and black screen. Then it will open the doors by nfc when my phone is close enough. And if on the move, I'll reprogram it from a term app in my phone.
But it isn't just the console: it is the console plus google plus the set of all stackoverflow questions that have been answered plus (if your docs have good SEO) the actual API documentation for your tool or (god bless you) the step-by-step tutorial for your tool.
The example he gave regarding opening a car door is not fair. The alternative is a car key. Let me give you a step by step example of what it's like to open the car door with a car key.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
.... 5 hours later
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Walk around with a key in my pocket.
Pull out key.
Open car door.
---
Yeah, give me the app that opens up my car door any day of the week, or a retina scanner on my car's lock.
Remember this is someone for whom opening a frequently used app is a multi step, disorienting process. Your instructions are nowhere near clear enough. I'd propose to add:
Recursively search through jailer style fractal key ring for car key
Find key and hold it between thumb and forefinger
Manoeuvre hand so as to separate car key from others
The best interface is indeed no interface and it's the end goal of a long design and product process.
There's probably some Maslow's hierarchy for design that looks like (designer friends - please let me what wheel I'm reinventing please):
1. The system has to be told exactly how to perform a task.
2. The system has reasonable defaults on how to do it. You push execute.
3. The system knows what you want and just does it.
The car key app requiring 13 steps means we're still in phase 1. The fact that it works at all is forward progress because before you couldn't do it at all! (One might argue that it's right now not useful and I would probably agree with that.[0][1])
The next step forward is probably to geofence your car and when you're near, a push notification asks you if you'd like to open your car door.
Finally, we get to the two step walk to door, open door.
We've got a long way to go and I applaud Mr. Krishna for pushing us further along. It does seem therefore that we should encourage app designers to continue to make apps with clunky interfaces so that we can begin the journey towards the goal - no interface at all.
I'd actually love to hear examples of systems that leapfrog from nonexistence to it's final evolution without intermediate steps. That would be really fascinating.
[0] Unrelated - rented a car once with remote keyless entry and keyless start - it is indeed a magical experience when the key never has to leave your pocket.
[1] Having gone through winter on the East Coast recently, I do think phone remote start might singlehandedly make the app worth it.
> 1. The system has to be told exactly how to perform a task. 2. The system has reasonable defaults on how to do it. You push execute. 3. The system knows what you want and just does it.
This. Interface is by the very definition a barrier between your brain and the system you want to change (by "system" I mean a system in general sense, a hammer, nail and a piece of wood also form a system). What matters is your goal and the change of system's state - everything else is cruft and we should aim to remove it.
Your brain actually tries to do that by its own. You can see it when e.g. driving a car. At first you're aware of everything - the steering wheel, the pedals, the gear shift knob, etc. You consciously manipulate them to move the car around. But at some point, with enough accumulated experience, you don't really think about the interface anymore. You just think "I want to be there" and do all the required movements to steer the car to the right place.
What is important for your brain to learn to ignore the interface is the interface being predictable and consistent. This is where, I think, smartphones are a step backwards compared to old featured phones. As we moved from firmware to full OSes, you can't rely anymore on timing. For example, on my old SE K800i I could do most frequent actions without even taking my phone from my pocket, because my brain learned the position and timing of various options. "Press Right Function, move down twice, press Right Function, wait 0.7 seconds, press Right Function...", etc. It's something that you can't do on a smartphone, because the new tech is laggy and full of unpredictable interface delays.
> The next step forward is probably to geofence your car and when you're near, a push notification asks you if you'd like to open your car door.
Or we could, you know, use NFC for opening and/or BLE for determining if the phone is near/inside the car.
Geofencing is totally a wrong tool for the job (and so far every time I heard it being suggested for something, ot was wrong for that as well).
> Finally, we get to the two step walk to door, open door.
We could do that decades ago. The way smartphones are getting introduced into the equation seems to be a huge leap backwards.
I used to text while driving when I was a young man. My Nokia 2110 had no T9 and nice big buttons, so I could do this without the phone ever having to leave my coat pocket. I would even properly punctuate, too!
It is not Maslov, but Parasuraman[0] for automation and decision selection:
1. The computer offers no assistance.
2. ... offers a complete set of actions.
3. ... narrows the selection down to a few.
4. ... suggests one alternative.
5. ... executes the suggestion if the human approves.
6. ... allows the human a restricted time to veto the execution.
7. ... executes, then informs the human.
8. ... executes, informs the human when asked.
9. ... executes, informs the human when the computer decides to.
10. ... acts automatically.
This is a framework for more than user interfaces, but it comes close.
I would not trust 3 even if we reach the point where we are making Jeeves level AI assistants. And 2 better damn well have a easy way to get to 1, just in case those defaults don't fit the situation (and by Murphy you can be sure they will not).
Consider a door with a handicap button. The interface is: press button, door opens. Now consider a door with a motion sensor, the new interface is: walk towards door, door opens.
This is basically an example of eliminating an interface. You rarely think about these interfaces because they just do the right thing. Many very simple operations have interfaces, and you can sometimes streamline or remove those interfaces using simple mechanisms.
Adn then the sensor fails or similar, and we need some other way to open and close. Never mind some way to prop it open in case something larger needs to go through.
1 and 2 remind me of imperative and declarative programming languages (respectively) - telling your program how to do something versus merely telling it what to do. It's the difference between saying "x = 1" and telling your computer how to allocate sufficient memory for an integer, store that integer in said chunk of memory, and access it later.
And the first thing that comes to mind is that "you" can do declarative programming now, because someone in the past did all the imperative programming to enable it. Question is, what happens if the declarative fails? How easy is it to get at the imperative guts?
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned "The Design of Everyday Things"[1], talking about human interaction design. It makes the same points, a few decades earlier so there're no references to mobile apps, but the distilled take away are the same ones:
* Be obvious
* Avoid extraneous "ornaments" in the interaction
* Understand what your user needs
Of course those three bullet points do not make the book (either of them, I assume) justice, but you might want to read Donald A. Norman's book first. Another book you might be interested in is Don't Make me Think[2], which is specifically related to software UI design.
I agree with the point that using smartphones for everything is a step back. Having touchscreens in cars is also a step back. We went from having controls that could manipulated without taking the eyes on the road to fancy futuristic UIs that require either for you to be parked, to have a companion or do something potentially dangerous.</rant>
I'm all for bashing touchscreens in cars (and in general), but I've never seen a new car that doesn't have the "multifunction steering wheel" where you can control almost everything (usually not the ventilation though) without taking your hands off the wheel. They require a few hours of getting used to each layout, but past that, they're great interfaces.
For me, I don't think anything can replace the physical sensation of putting a key in a lock and turning it. That is, the interface feels very "real" and solid. There's something very satisfying about that.
Likewise, as I've gotten into the habit of giving the handle a strong pull after locking to make sure it's locked, I don't think a proximity system would work so well for me.
My 3 year old Mazda uses a key fob. As long as the key is on my person, the doors will unlock and the car will turn on without me needing to press any buttons on the keys themselves nor do I have to turn my key in the steering column. I have had to use rentals from time to time and the entire act of pulling my key from my picked is so inconvenient and annoying (I know, I know, FWP.)
I don't understand the rant. So BMW's smartphone app is flawed. Meanwhile my 2005 Prius has keyless entry that simply works and last a several years per battery change. It's single purpose and only works when very close to the car.
80% of the author's frustration could be resolved with a lockscreen widget that launches the app into the appropriate action, preferably authenticated with fingerprint/TouchID/passcode.
Then it becomes a) pull out phone, b) unsleep display c) use lock screen widget d) authenticate using passcode/TouchID.
While the BMW example is easy to pick on, I am skeptical that the book deserves to be a book. In my opinion, the best book is no book. I'm quite tired of books that are overgrown 1 page essays.
>Then it becomes a) pull out phone, b) unsleep display c) use lock screen widget d) authenticate using passcode/TouchID.
What if I want another widget on my screen ? Do I put it there too ? Where do I stop ?
And in any case, it is still longer than just a) pulling a handle.
The whole point of the rant is that interfaces shouldn't be something we have to go through: they should be transparent. In the case he presented (Siemens'), there is no interface.
We have built a culture of "there's an app for that" where 99% of these apps are absolute, total crap. You don't need Tapatalk's app to browse forums, you don't need an app to turn on your lights, etc. An unbelievable amount of apps are actually slower at doing something than they were supposed to solve.
They wrote some article about Eric Schmit being a sexist asshole the other day (maybe yesterday) and low and behold the senior editor was talking trash to people in the comments section. It was a flimsy terrible article that I honestly felt contributed nothing to tech journalism on one side, or diversity and women's inclusion on the other. It was almost as if they wrote it to pick a bone with their readers and then battle it out over the blowback. Sometimes I honestly cannot stand that website.
This made me think me think of all the applications for smartphones beyond, well, apps. It is after all a computer in your pocket. There are options with a contextual interface, like RFC and IF (formerly known as IFTTT). The BMW example could hypothetically support an RFC tag by your door that you've pre-configured to trigger the BMW unlock API call.
There's also an advantage to not having to carry around a key, replacing it with a digital trigger that lives on your smartphone. One less thing to carry around, and that goes even for the app.
I'm being pedantic, but "No interface" implies that there is no interaction between user and device which would make the device useless. The interface is the point of communication between user and device. Every device needs an interface. I think a better term would be "No Input".
The author mentions a weather app and an app that shows basic stock market data as examples, but it's unclear to me how those problems could be solved with "No interface".
It's not even "no input". Your approach to the car is the input, it's "no extraneous action to provide input". You're using as the input normal user activity that precedes a necessary response.
Google had something great in Android 4 with the Lock Screen Widgets. I had my SONOS and TV Controls on the lockscreen and could glace on a rain radar app without unlocking the tablet. Honestly I'm not sure if I would have placed a car unlock app there, but on the other hand losing a key is just as likely.
With Android 5 this useful functionality just disappeared.
I don't want to have to use an app to unlock the car but I don't want to have to carry bulky keys around either.
I want to walk up to the car.
The car recognizes me because I'm carrying my phone (or watch)
When I pull on the door handle it unlocks because of the proximity of the phone.
This is similar to how my car and keyfob work now but I want to carry one less item.
Was Golden Krishna paid to write this article, or did The Verge receive any compensation?
I ask because this is more or less an advert for his book. The introduction is presented in the third person to introduce the excerpt, and the closing is a pitch on why you should buy the book.
Articles like this are so aggravating to read[1]. I want to skim and get to the point where they actually start to discuss the actual idea, so that I can determine if it's worth it to me to read it. But they want to build up to it as if I'm reading some god damn novel.
Also, the author addresses his readers as if we're some kind of touch-screen natives who uses our phones and other touch-screen devices to accomplish everything in our lives, and we could never conceive of anything else[2]. Am I the only one who was never enamoured with actually using smart phones? They are a pain to write messages on, they are a slightly less of a pain to browse with, and they are passable to good for everything else.
And the fact that it takes many steps to do something with your phone is supposed to be surprising? It's practically inevitable: one entry point (swipe to unlock etc.) to do all your tasks, equipped with a 5" screen. Good luck.
Thankfully, it turns out that the author's point was more novel than something silly like "What if we didn't use smart phone interfaces, but some other interface instead? WOW...". I hadn't considered a solution like Siemens'. I don't know if it is preferable to my key that already has a remote attached, but it's very interesting.
[1] Yes, I know it's a chapter from his book. But it's published as an article so I will judge it as such.
[2] "Don’t let your emotions blind you" - How about "don't talk down to me"?
★★★
Side note: He has a point about 'everything has to be an app', though. I'm supposed to be using some form of identification, and they used to send out a piece of paper and a little "this is valid for this time period" thing to attach to your card. Now, they have phased that out for an app. An app. To replace a piece of paper and a card. No, I don't think it even replaces the card since you use it to access certain places.
>Am I the only one who was never enamoured with actually using smart phones? They are a pain to write messages on, they are a slightly less of a pain to browse with, and they are passable to good for everything else.
You're not the only one, in fact I don't even think they any good at browsing. The whole touch screen interface is pretty much flawed for anything where you not limited to a few large button. It simply doesn't make sense that you covering information with our fingers. Discoverability is often pretty bad, mostly I suspect it's because of limited screen space, there simply isn't room for information, navigation and my fingers.
Take the author's critical example of a smartphone app to unlock your car. Yes, that's terrible. Now, let's look at the actual interface - the key. I've owned two Subarus now. I loved the keyless entry device on my 1999 Outback. I feel the keyless entry on my 2010 Forester was a step backwards. I accidentally trigger it when I don't want to. It's unreliable, often taking several presses to work. It adds an extra button I've never used that is redundant functionality.
How about another interface? We recently got a new turkey baster, made by Good Grips. It has a built-in rest. Turkey basters get greasy-dirty, and you keep using them off and on for hours. The rest keeps it from getting grease all over your counter. That's a great user interface!
The problem isn't "no interface". The problem is "there's an app for that". Not everything falls under smartphone convenience. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a UI.